alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2021009EN.01001401.xml

| 11.1.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 9/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.1.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 9/14

---

Judgment of the General Court of 11 November 2020 — AD v ECHA

(Case T-25/19) (1)

(Civil service - Members of the temporary staff - Fixed-term contracts - Decision not to renew - Duty of care - Equal treatment - Manifest error of assessment - Misuse of powers - Right to be heard - Duty to state reasons - Liability)

(2021/C 9/20)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: AD (represented by: N. Flandin and L. Levi, lawyers)

Defendant: European Chemicals Agency (represented by: C.-M. Bergerat and T. Zbihlej, acting as Agents, and by A. Duron, lawyer)

Re:

Application under Article 270 TFEU seeking (i) annulment, in substance, first, of ECHA’s decision of 28 March 2018 not to renew the applicant’s fixed-term contract and, second, of the vacancy notice for the establishment of a reserve list for the recruitment of contract staff for function group II published on 9 March 2018 and (ii) compensation for the material and non-material damage allegedly suffered by the applicant as a result of the decision of 28 March 2018 and the vacancy notice of 9 March 2018.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders AD to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders AD to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 103, 18.3.2019.

---
III 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. CON. RES. 23 

Declaring that it is the policy of the United States to support and facilitate 

Israel in maintaining defensible borders and that it is contrary to United 

States policy and national security to have the borders of Israel return 

to the armistice lines that existed on June 4, 1967. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JUNE 9, 2011 

Mr. HATCH (for himself, Mr. LIEBERMAN, Mr. RUBIO, Mr. NELSON of Nebraska, Mr. JOHANNS, Mr. WYDEN, Mr. MORAN, Mr. TOOMEY, Mr. 

INHOFE, Mr. BARRASSO, Mr. KIRK, Mr. BURR, Mr. CORNYN, Mr. KYL, 

Mr. LEE, Mr. THUNE, Mr. PORTMAN, Mr. COATS, Mr. COBURN, Ms. 

AYOTTE, Mr. BOOZMAN, Mr. BLUNT, Mr. BROWN of Massachusetts, Mr. 

VITTER, Mr. ROBERTS, Mr. ENZI, Mr. ISAKSON, Ms. MURKOWSKI, Mr. 

WICKER, Mr. LUGAR, and Mr. CHAMBLISS) submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations 

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 

Declaring that it is the policy of the United States to support 

and facilitate Israel in maintaining defensible borders 

and that it is contrary to United States policy and national security to have the borders of Israel return to 

the armistice lines that existed on June 4, 1967. 

Whereas, throughout its short history, Israel, a liberal democratic ally of the United States, has been repeatedly attacked by authoritarian regimes and terrorist organizations that denied its right to exist; 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•SCON 23 IS 

Whereas the United States Government remains steadfastly 

committed to the security of Israel, especially its ability 

to maintain secure, recognized, and defensible borders; 

Whereas the United States Government is resolutely bound to 

its policy of preserving and strengthening the capability 

of Israel to deter enemies and defend itself against any 

threat; 

Whereas United Nations Security Council Resolution 242 

(1967) recognized Israel’s ‘‘right to live in peace within 

secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or 

acts of force’’; 

Whereas the United States has long recognized that a return 

to the 1967 lines would create a strategic military vulnerability for Israel and greatly impede its sovereign right 

to defend its borders; and 

Whereas Prime Minister of Israel Benjamin Netanyahu correctly stated on May 20, 2011, that the 1967 lines were 

not ‘‘boundaries of peace. They are the boundaries of repeated war’’: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives 

2 concurring), That— 

3 (1) it is the policy of the United States to sup4 port and facilitate Israel in creating and maintaining 

5 secure, recognized, and defensible borders; and 

6 (2) it is contrary to United States policy and 

7 our national security to have the borders of Israel 

8 return to the armistice lines that existed on June 4, 

9 1967. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
DISMISS; and Opinion Filed June 24, 2019.

In The

Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05-19-00505-CV

BODMD, INC., Appellant

V.

JAMES MEEHAN, BODMD MEDICAL GROUP (OK) P.C., AND 

CATALYST UTICA, PC, Appellees

On Appeal from the 380th Judicial District Court

Collin County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 380-06699-2018

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Whitehill, Partida-Kipness, and Pedersen, III

Opinion by Justice Partida-Kipness

Before the Court is appellant’s unopposed motion for voluntary dismissal of the appeal. 

We grant the motion and dismiss the appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1(a)(1).

190505F.P05

/Robbie Partida-Kipness/

ROBBIE PARTIDA-KIPNESS

JUSTICE
–2–

Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

JUDGMENT

BODMD, INC., Appellant

No. 05-19-00505-CV V.

JAMES MEEHAN, BODMD MEDICAL 

GROUP (OK) P.C., AND CATALYST 

UTICA, PC, Appellees

On Appeal from the 380th Judicial District 

Court, Collin County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 380-06699-2018.

Opinion delivered by Justice PartidaKipness, Justices Whitehill and Pedersen, 

III participating.

In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, we DISMISS the appeal.

We ORDER that appellees James Meehan, BodMD Medical Group (OK) P.C., and 

Catalyst Utica, PC recover their costs, if any, of this appeal from appellant BodMD, Inc.

Judgment entered this 24th day of June, 2019.
# C_2022482EN.01001401.xml

| 19.12.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 482/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.12.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 482/14

---

Judgment of the General Court of 9 November 2022 — Alfa Acciai v Commission

(Case T-656/19) (1)

(Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Market for reinforcing bars - Decision finding an infringement of Article 65 CS after the expiry of the ECSC Treaty on the basis of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 - Fixing of prices - Limiting and controlling output and sales - Decision adopted following the annulment of earlier decisions - New hearing in the presence of the competition authorities of the Member States - Rights of the defence - Principle of sound administration - Reasonable period - Obligation to state reasons)

(2022/C 482/20)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Alfa Acciai SpA (Brescia, Italy) (represented by: D. Fosselard, D. Slater and G. Carnazza, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: P. Rossi, G. Conte and C. Sjödin, acting as Agents, and P. Manzini, lawyer)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of Commission Decision C(2019) 4969 final of 4 July 2019 relating to a proceeding under Article 65 of the ECSC Treaty (Case AT.37956 — Reinforcing bars), in so far as it finds that the applicant infringed that provision and imposes upon it a fine of EUR 3,587 million.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Alfa Acciai SpA to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Alfa Acciai SpA to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 399, 25.11.2019.

---
#### SNYDER, Respondent, v. DELAWARE, L. & W. R. CO., Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department.

November 13, 1907.)

Action by Ernie Snyder, as sole administratrix, etc., of Jeremiah Snyder, deceased, against the Delaware, Lackawanna & Western Railroad Company.

No opinion. Judgment and order unanimously affirmed, with costs.
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 136 (Tuesday, July 20, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 38391]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-15472]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION


Sunshine Act Meetings

TIME AND DATE: 2:00 p.m. on Thursday, July 22, 2021.

PLACE: The meeting will be held via remote means and/or at the 
Commission's headquarters, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549.

STATUS:  This meeting will be closed to the public.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: Commissioners, Counsel to the Commissioners, 
the Secretary to the Commission, and recording secretaries will attend 
the closed meeting. Certain staff members who have an interest in the 
matters also may be present.
    In the event that the time, date, or location of this meeting 
changes, an announcement of the change, along with the new time, date, 
and/or place of the meeting will be posted on the Commission's website 
at https://www.sec.gov.
    The General Counsel of the Commission, or his designee, has 
certified that, in his opinion, one or more of the exemptions set forth 
in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(3), (5), (6), (7), (8), 9(B) and (10) and 17 CFR 
200.402(a)(3), (a)(5), (a)(6), (a)(7), (a)(8), (a)(9)(ii) and (a)(10), 
permit consideration of the scheduled matters at the closed meeting.
    The subject matter of the closed meeting will consist of the 
following topics:
    Institution and settlement of injunctive actions;
    Institution and settlement of administrative proceedings;
    Resolution of litigation claims; and
    Other matters relating to examinations and enforcement proceedings.
    At times, changes in Commission priorities require alterations in 
the scheduling of meeting agenda items that may consist of 
adjudicatory, examination, litigation, or regulatory matters.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: For further information; please 
contact Vanessa A. Countryman from the Office of the Secretary at (202) 
551-5400.

    Dated: July 15, 2021.
Vanessa A. Countryman,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-15472 Filed 7-16-21; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P
----

|   | (1) | the Company’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2011 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and |
|--------|-----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | (2) | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. |
|--------|-----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Dated: May 9, 2011 |                                                                           |
|--------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|               |                                                                           |
|               | /s/ Mary T. Minch                                                              |
|               | Name:  Mary T. Minch                                                 |
|               | Title: Executive Vice President-Finance, Chief Financial Officer and Secretary |

----
# C_2021028EN.01004102.xml

| 25.1.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 28/41 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.1.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 28/41

---

Judgment of the General Court of 2 December 2020 — Sánchez Romero Carvajal Jabugo v EUIPO — Embutidos Monells (5MS MMMMM)

(Case T-639/19) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU figurative mark 5MS MMMMM - Earlier EU figurative mark 5J - Relative grounds for refusal - No likelihood of confusion - No similarity between the signs - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - No damage to reputation - Article 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 8(5) of Regulation 2017/1001))

(2021/C 28/63)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Sánchez Romero Carvajal Jabugo, SAU (El Puerto de Santa María, Spain) (represented by: J. Iglesias Monravá, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: S. Palmero Cabezas, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Embutidos Monells, SA (San Miguel de Balenya, Spain) (represented by: L. Broschat García and L. Polo Flores, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 24 July 2019 (Case R 1728/2018-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Sánchez Romero Carvajal Jabugo and Embutidos Monells.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 24 July 2019 (Case R 1728/2018-4); |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 24 July 2019 (Case R 1728/2018-4);

| 2. | Dismisses the action as to the remainder; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

| 3. | Orders EUIPO and Embutidos Monells, SA to bear their respective costs and to each pay half of the costs incurred by Sánchez Romero Carvajal Jabugo, SAU. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders EUIPO and Embutidos Monells, SA to bear their respective costs and to each pay half of the costs incurred by Sánchez Romero Carvajal Jabugo, SAU.

---

(1)  OJ C 383, 11.11.2019.

---
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Homer RICHARDS, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 11-6396.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: July 27, 2011.

Decided: Aug. 10, 2011.

Homer Richards, Appellant pro se. Lawrence Joseph Leiser, Assistant United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before NIEMEYER and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Homer Richards appeals the district court’s order denying his motions for DNA testing, discovery, and appointment of counsel. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *United States v. Richards,*No. 1:93-cr-00062-JCC-2 (E.D. Va. filed Mar. 1, 2011, and entered Mar. 2, 2011). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*AFFIRMED.*
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Larry Morales, Appellant.

[943 NYS2d 886] —

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Richard D. Carruthers, J), entered on or about June 18, 2010, which denied defendant’s CPL 440.46 motion for resentencing, unanimously affirmed.

The court properly exercised its discretion in determining that substantial justice dictated the denial of defendant’s motion. Defendant’s very extensive criminal history, along with other negative factors in his background, outweighed evidence of his rehabilitation *(see e.g. People v Correa,*83 AD3d 555 [2011], *lv denied*17 NY3d 805 [2011]). Concur — Tom, J.P., Sweeny, Renwick, Freedman and Abdus-Salaam, JJ.
U.S. flagAn official website of the United States government
                    Here's how you know **Official websites use .gov**
                            
                            A **.gov** website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.
 **Secure .gov websites use HTTPS**
                            
                            A **lock** (                            
                              A locked padlock                                                      
                            
                            ) or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.


Menu Agricultural Research Service
						
                    U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
 Beltsville Agricultural Research Center: Beltsville, MD
 close



    Research

                    Research Projects
                                    Publications
                                    Collaborations
                                    News
                People

                    Staff Listing
                                    Careers


        


                    USDA Civil Rights Policy StatementSearch small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us




ARS Home Northeast Area Beltsville, Maryland (BARC) Beltsville Agricultural Research Center Research





- IACUC Summary

IACUC Summariesheadline bar IACUC Summaries  **2024** **January 2024**  **2023** **March 2023**  **2022** **September 2022**
**March 2022**  **2021** **September 2021**
**February 2021**  **2020** **August 2020**
**February 2020**  **2019** **August 2019**
**February 2019**  **2018** **July 2018**
**January 2018**  **2017** **August 2017**


Return to top


Connect with ARS Sign up


ARS Home
                            USDA.gov
                            Plain Writing
                            Policies & Links
                            Civil Rights Statements
                            FOIA
                            Accessibility Statement
                            Privacy Policy
                            Non-Discrimination Statement
                            Quality of Information
                            USA.gov
                            WhiteHouse.gov
# C_2019103EN.01005301.xml

| 18.3.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 103/53 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.3.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 103/53

---

Action brought on 23 January 2019 — Dansk Erhverv v Commission

(Case T-47/19)

(2019/C 103/69)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Dansk Erhverv (Copenhagen, Denmark) (represented by: T. Mygind, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

| — | annul Commission decision C(2018) 6315 final of 4 October 2018 concerning State aid SA.44865 (2016/FC) — Germany — Alleged State aid to German beverage border shops; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Commission decision C(2018) 6315 final of 4 October 2018 concerning State aid SA.44865 (2016/FC) — Germany — Alleged State aid to German beverage border shops;

| — | order the Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on one plea in law, alleging that the Commission violated the applicant’s procedural rights as an interested party pursuant to Article 108(2) TFEU and Articles 4(4), 12(1) and 24(1) of the Procedural Regulation, (1) by failing to open the formal investigation procedure provided for in Article 108(2) TFEU despite the serious difficulties arising in the assessment of the state aid issues addressed in the complaint related to the administrative ‘export declaration’ practice and in particular to the relief of the obligation for the Border Shops to charge a deposit and thereby pay the deposit VAT, as well as a relief of fines for violations of the deposit charging obligations under the German canned beverages deposit scheme. The Commission therefore committed errors of law and manifest errors of assessment of the facts, first, as concerns the compatibility of the ‘export declaration’ practice with Germany’s obligations pursuant to Article 4(3) TFEU, the Packaging Directive (2) and the polluter-pays principle, and with the deposit charging requirements pursuant to the applicable German Packaging Ordonnance. Secondly, the Commission erred with respect to the State aid effects of the VAT revenue foregone by Germany as a result of the ‘export declaration’ practice.

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EU) 2015/1589 of 13 July 2015 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, OJ L 248, 24.9.2015, p. 9.

(2)  Directive (EU) 2018/852 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2018 amending Directive 94/62/EC on packaging and packaging waste, OJ L 150, 14.6.2018, p. 141.

---
#### In the Matter of Rosemary Chinye Okolie Toriola, Petitioner, v Robert Doar, Respondent.

[942 NYS2d 376]

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 in the nature of mandamus, inter alia, to compel the respondent to answer a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, and application by the petitioner to prosecute the proceeding as a poor person.

Ordered that the application for leave to prosecute the proceeding as a poor person is granted to the extent that the filing fee imposed by CPLR 8022 (b) is waived, and the application is otherwise denied as academic; and it is further,

Adjudged that the petition is dismissed, without costs or disbursements.

This Court does not have subject matter jurisdiction to entertain this proceeding *(see*CPLR 506 [b]; 7804 [b]). Dillon, J.E, Angiolillo, Belen and Cohen, JJ., concur.
# C_2021401EN.01000701.xml

| 4.10.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 401/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.10.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 401/7

---

Order of the General Court of 20 July 2021 — Coravin v EUIPO — Cora (CORAVIN)

(Case T-500/19) (1)

(EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - Declaration of revocation of the earlier national mark on which the contested decision is based - No need to adjudicate)

(2021/C 401/08)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Coravin, Inc. (Wilmington, Delaware, United States) (represented by: F. Valentin, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: D. Hanf, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO intervening before the General Court: Cora (Marne-la-Vallée, France) (represented by: M. Georges-Picot, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 12 April 2019 (affaire R 2385/2016-1), relating to invalidity proceedings between Cora and Coravin.

Operative part of the order

| 1. | There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action. |
| --- | --- |

1.

There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action.

| 2. | The parties shall each bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The parties shall each bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 288, 26.8.2019.

---